Oct 30, 2020, 16:33 by talk@openstreetmap.org:
> A split polygon with only an outer MP is not an "area".
>
It is a valid multipolygon representing an area.
A bit pointless multipolygon and maybe something that
should be converted to version not
using relation, but it is a valid tagging.
>
Am 30.10.2020 um 16:33 schrieb Dave F:
But anyway... Point slit stands: Why did iD take this authoritarian
position.
Already pointed this out n-times now: because it synthesizes an area
object type.
As has been noted other, editors don't make this assumption.
Other editors don't try to
On 29/10/2020 06:41, Simon Poole wrote:
Am 29.10.2020 um 00:17 schrieb Dave F:
iD editor attracts a hell of a lot of "WTFs", doesn't it? I mean,
even its most ardent fan must occasionally raise a Roger Moore eyebrow.
bhuousel has taken the presumptive decision that the contributor's
desired
Am 29.10.2020 um 00:17 schrieb Dave F:
iD editor attracts a hell of a lot of "WTFs", doesn't it? I mean, even
its most ardent fan must occasionally raise a Roger Moore eyebrow.
bhuousel has taken the presumptive decision that the contributor's
desired end result will always be a MP relation.
On 27/10/2020 03:56, Bryce Cogswell wrote:
I agree it’s a little counterintuitive for experienced users but I understand
the rationale: If you’re splitting a building (closed way) how is the result
valid unless it’s converted to a multipolygon?
The editor is presuming the splitting of the
iD editor attracts a hell of a lot of "WTFs", doesn't it? I mean, even
its most ardent fan must occasionally raise a Roger Moore eyebrow.
bhuousel has taken the presumptive decision that the contributor's
desired end result will always be a MP relation. This is wrong, plain &
simple (& quite
Its done that essentially since day one. As Bryce points out doing so
keeps the object a valid "area" (and iD makes a valiant effort to stop
you from breaking that).
It is also one of my favourite examples in talks why trying to keep
things simple for the user is very difficult and some times
On 10/26/20 22:56, Bryce Cogswell via talk wrote:
> I agree it’s a little counterintuitive for experienced users but I
> understand the rationale: If you’re splitting a building (closed way)
> how is the result valid unless it’s converted to a multipolygon?
JOSM has no issue splitting a closed
I agree it’s a little counterintuitive for experienced users but I understand
the rationale: If you’re splitting a building (closed way) how is the result
valid unless it’s converted to a multipolygon?
> On Oct 26, 2020, at 6:09 PM, Dave F via talk wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I don't use iD editor
9 matches
Mail list logo
